dagblog - Comments for "The Phone is Ringing"

I agree that not all hawks

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:48:30 +0000

In reply to I reject your framing that

I agree that not all hawks and interventionists are Neocons, some are Democrats, there are lots of names. The thing is, at the end of the day if she makes the same decisions that a Neocon would make, then regardless whatever name might be put on her geopolitical philosophy, it will be a distinction without a difference.

I reject your framing that

ocean-kat — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 20:01:08 +0000

In reply to I would like to point out

I reject your framing that chooses neocon as the standard and considers anything that doesn't reject all neocon positions as lesser evil neocon. By that standard Obama would be considered a lesser evil neocon for his wide spread use of drone assassinations and Lybia bombing campaign. I don't see either Obama or Hillary as neocon lite.

That being said I agree that Hillary is more hawkish than Obama and will likely have a more robust and interventionist foreign policy. I doubt that that comes as a surprise to any one who's been paying attention. Its been clear for years.

I would like to point out

Anonymous LULU — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:05:14 +0000

In reply to The Phone is Ringing

I would like to point out that, during the early years of Obama’s administration, when some here at Dagblog expressed disappointment at his policies based on their disillusionment of their expectations he had created by his brilliant campaign, it was pointed out by others that we should have known what we were getting. The evidence/information was readily available before the election is what we were correctly, I now believe, told.
In my blog above I ask whether, if Clinton did not oppose the Neocon position, it would be affectively the same as supporting the Neocon position. I will not attempt at this time to artfully express my contempt for Neocons. I take it as a given that most here at Dag would agree that the Neocons were a powerful force in formulating a disastrous foreign policy and some have expressed wonder as to why they are given any credence today since they have been wrong on virtually every major policy position they have taken. Often criminally wrong if it is criminal to advocate and/or implement the committing of crimes. I’m thinking of illegal wars, torture, misguided sanctions, stupidity, etc.
Now the Neocons are reappearing as respected voices. Well, truth is they never went away, but admitting to the brand was at least a bit out of style for a while. A fawning piece at the NYTs is both an example of and a reason for that resurgence. What is notable to me and pertinent to this post is that Robert Kagan says there, in affect, that Hillary is Neocon enough for him. The evidence that he is accurate in that assessment is readily available. If she runs as expected we should know what we are getting when we vote for her. What we will be getting, it appears, is the lesser evil Neocon. It requires some mental juggling to defend Obama against his Neocon critics and then be prepared to defend Hillary when she acts like one even if she still avoids being branded as one.

Kagan held a foreign policy advisory position as a Clinton appointee. Here is some analysis of his positions.

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/neoconservatism-vindicated-fawning.html

Clinton's Top Selling Point

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 18:23:33 +0000

In reply to The Phone is Ringing

Clinton's Top Selling Point in 2016: First Female President

Top negatives are not being qualified; continuing Obama's agenda

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans say the best or most positive thing about a possible Hillary Clinton presidency -- if she were to run and be elected in 2016 -- would be her serving as the first female president in the nation's history. Other positives mentioned by at least 5% of Americans are her experience, that she would bring about change from the previous two administrations, that she would adhere to a Democratic agenda, and that she would be the best choice.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168041/clinton-top-selling-point-2016-first-f...

More About Hillary Clinton's 'Deafening Silence'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/more-about-hillary-clinto_b_49...

And more directly to my point in this blog

Hillary Clinton's Two Foreign-Policy Catastrophes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clintons-two-fore_1_b_...

Sorry, cannot produce a live link to the final article at Huffpost but copy and paste works. That article is the one I think most worth reading.

I see your point, but mutatis

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 16:32:43 +0000

In reply to Swampland at Time

I see your point, but mutatis mutandis, it's true.

As a Clinton, whatever she

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 15:06:05 +0000

In reply to Hillary is still quiet

As a Clinton, whatever she says or doesn't say will be used against her.

There's a good chance another Gennifer Flowers reunion is coming up to discuss how many new old friends Hillary's killed, and whether she slept with Putin and/or the Ayatollah, and other pertinent pieces of our foreign policy puzzle. That no foreign policy "professional" was damaged for advocating war in Iraq or continuation in Afghanistan, while she's carried the brunt of guilt for voting for inspections as a minority member of Senate gives about all the background we need for this. Well, that and Sarah Palin being a foreign policy analyst for Fox.

Hillary is still quiet

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 13:34:26 +0000

In reply to The Phone is Ringing

Hillary is still quiet regarding negotiations with Iran. Surely she has said something about them somewhere but if it was significant I would have expected her view to get some coverage and then some feedback. But, maybe I just missed it. She has, though, come out publicly and by her own volition with opinions on Ukraine and the cause of all the troubles there which, apparently, she thinks is Putin.

Some Clinton backers suggested she made the provocative comparison to give herself protection from expected right-wing attacks on her for having participated in the “reset” of U.S. policy toward Russia in 2009. She also was putting space between herself and President Barack Obama’s quiet effort to cooperate with Putin to resolve crises with Iran and Syria. [Emphasis added]

Democrats might want to contemplate how a President Hillary Clinton would handle that proverbial “3 a.m. phone call,” perhaps one with conflicting information about a chemical weapons attack in Syria or muddled suspicions that Iran is moving toward a nuclear bomb or reports that Russia is using its military to resist a right-wing coup in neighboring Ukraine.

Would she unthinkingly adopt the hawkish neocon position as she often did as U.S. senator and as Secretary of State? Would she wait for the “fog of war” to lift or simply plunge ahead with flame-throwing rhetoric that could make a delicate situation worse?

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/07/the-we-hate-putin-group-think/

This article is about more than just Clinton and is more opinion based on connecting dots than it is news. I say that because virtually all the dots Parry connects have been in plain sight for a long time. One thing I forgot to bookmark and will try to find later if I have time is a video showing protesters in Ukraine getting shot and though I do not consider it to be definitive it certainly appears that some are getting shot from behind while facing government troops in front of them.

I am not wanting or expecting

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:48:24 +0000

In reply to As the ex-Sec. of State of

I am not wanting or expecting Clinton to delve into specifics or details of what the final agreement should look like, numbers of centrifuges or percentage of enrichment for instance, but to give public support for the process of negotiating itself to counter those who are attacking the very process in order to prevent any agreement.

The following was composed before you added your second paragraph.

Different politicians hold different spots on the stage. Hillary's is usually in the spotlight. She can be fairly seen as having been running for President since she was the First Lady of Arkansas. Her supporters can honestly argue that she has not just experience but the most experience directly relevant to being President of any other candidate at the time they asked us to vote for them. She should be particularly qualified to speak to the subject of the negotiations. She must have virtually all the objective information the President has but also the experience of studying and of meeting first person with so many of the principles.
Now we circle back to the [assumed] fact that she wants to be the next President. I say that that obligates her to continue to serve the current President and thus our country on this extremely important matter. She doesn't get a time out. That is because she is in the position she is in. If the outcome of the negotiations are important to the country then she is in a position to lend valuable service to her country by helping them be seen by the public as a good thing to persue compared to any alternative. She is in position to do that right now. Today. The need for support is right now, Today.
That is, of course, if she does support the President in this and she does believe it would be a good thing for the country if he is successful.

"As the ex-Sec. of State of the same administration who might run for president, I think it would be appropriate if she said that no one should be saying anything while negotiations are still going on."

I disagree. Even if I did agreed with you as to what should be appropriate, I would point out the obvious, people are saying things while the negotiations are going on. Powerful people. People who want the talks to fail. I want to see those people rebutted by powerful people that want the talks to succeed.

As the ex-Sec. of State of

artappraiser — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 19:25:09 +0000

In reply to The Phone is Ringing

As the ex-Sec. of State of the same administration who might run for president, I think it would be appropriate if she said that no one should be saying anything while negotiations are still going on.

And she could add that that would go especially for someone like her, who knows a lot about all the parties and agendas involved. That a Senator or Congressperson that knows nothing 'bout nothing but what the lobbyists tell him or her might bloviate one way or another without much effect one way or another, because he or she actually doesn't know the actuality of what's going on in the negotiations, and most parties involved will realize they are just bloviating an ideological position. But someone like her shouldn't be saying, because it's much more likely it might be taken the wrong way (as say, inside information) by one or another party involved and screw something up.

Like Hillary supporting peace

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:57:26 +0000

In reply to Yeah, you are right. The

Like Hillary supporting peace will turn Republicans into peacenicks and stop their criticism?

I just can't imagine who the fence-sitters are that she will move.

"when that support might make the critical difference" - huge "might" here - Obama & Kerry are invested in the process, there's a 6-month accord agreed to in Geneva - what exactly could Hillary say that would change anything? It's all about multi-party discussions and stepping stones in a roadmap, no? It's up to Rouhani's actions, and Obama's administration not to be pushed into a corner by conservatives (i.e. where whatever Iran does, they get ruled as not complying)

(note: the "partial" enrichment was a trial balloon floated by Hillary 2 years ago. Should she toot her own horn? That's gotten her far in the past. NOT.)